Reading this is frankly a struggle. Eysenck's giant ego is on every page. But this is an autobiography, and - as becomes clear - his achievements generally matched his high opinion of himself. The book covers Eysenck's career and controversies (most notably IQ and race) comprehensively, and gives a reasonable airing of all sides of the arguments. It gives a good insight into the development of the 'school' of cognitive behavioral therapy, providing a window into the politics of introducing a new theory into academia and professional practice. Eysenck was the rebel through all of these years, challenging 'accepted practices' and finding himself on the receiving end of a great deal of resentment from vested interests. And this was long before taking on the 'world' with his research into IQ and race.

What comes through strongly with this book is Eysenck's honesty. He writes it 'just as he sees it' and takes the reader with him as he lays out the events and issues from his perspective very clearly. This particularity - making what is not said is just as significant as what is said - gives the reader the opportunity to gain an insight into a few matters that Eysenck appears to have chosen to ignore, or was completely unaware of.

Throughout his career Eysenck championed scientific statistical methods in psychology. His approach took him to the forefront of psychology, but arguably he then took the science too far and too seriously in drawing conclusions about race and IQ. Eysenck could have defended himself in the bitter debate that followed by saying that he was - as a good scientist - simply observing rather than concluding. But it is clear from his writing that it wasn't in his nature to take the cautious approach, particularly as he'd (nearly) always been right in the past in the face of entrenched opposition. There is a sense that the virulence – and illogical arguments – of the opposition only served to re-inforced his belief in the correctness of his position. He had, however, two blind spots

This book, and Eysenck's history, does not suggest that he put any great effort into assuring himself that his audience understood that scientific method involves arriving at a qualified truth through a process incorporating both rigor and humility. The humility in this sense, is the process of putting one's own theories 'through the wringer', looking for every possible explanation as to why they are wrong before releasing them on the world, and even then admitting the possibility that further research might overturn them.

Eysenck's highest ideal, the basis for his immensely high opinion of himself was his thoroughness. This suggests he would not have neglected to go through the process of attempting to tear down his own arguments. But Eysenck's immense pride also suggests that he may have given less attention to making clear, and ensuring that the public understood that he was making clear, that he and his results were bound by the rules of science. That conclusions were 'tentative' and always subject to further revision. One suspects that Eysenck would have acknowledged this if asked, given his commitment to being a capital 'S' scientist. This admission might have taken some of the heat out of the furore over race and IQ that Eysenck's research unleashed. But it was not asked, and Eysenck didn't seem to feel the need to offer the qualification.

It was not in Eysenck's nature to 'reach down' in debate to explain the first principles of the philosophy of science to students and colleagues. One gets the sense in his autobiography that the public criticism of his work on race and IQ did not bother him overmuch. But he was immensely frustrated when students and colleagues failed to use scientific principles in bringing the argument to him. He pointedly includes a photo of graffiti at Birmingham University that read, “Uphold genuine academic freedom. Fascist Eysenck has no right to speak!”.

When his actual science was challenged, Eysenck was able to show that his statistics were completely thorough and correct. The debate, however, very seldom lifted into the realm of validity. That is to say deep questions about the design of the experiments underpinning the theory, what might be concluded from the statistics that are collected, and the development and weighing of alternate hypothesis. This was the area of greatest weakness in Eysenck's work, but also the area largely neglected by his detractors in the public arena, and his critics in the scientific community.

The toxic nature of the public debate tended to overwhelm the content of the scientific debate. Eysenck couldn't, and wasn't inclined to, develop his ideas away from the glare of public execration, with the result that little progress was made in furthering understanding of IQ and race at the time, or since. More cautious scientists than Eysenck (and that is most of them) have drawn lessons from Eysenck's experiences and generally steered clear of making further comment on the issue.

The parallels with the debate about the science of climate change are interesting although not absolute. At the end of the day this is a difficult, but interesting autobiography, and an excellent insight into the development of cognitive behavioral psychology. Furthermore, it is essential reading for gaining an insight into the interaction of science and public opinion. ( )